Gaines v. Virk et al

Filing 19

ORDER to SHOW CAUSE Why the Action Should Not Be Dismissed for Plaintiff's Failure to Comply With the Court's Order and to Prosecute This Action, signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 5/30/2018: 21-Day Deadline. (Hellings, J)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

MARY LEE GAINES,
Plaintiff,

14
15

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THE ACTION
SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR
PLAINTIFF'S FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH
THE COURT'S ORDER AND TO PROSECUTE
THIS ACTION

Defendants.

12
13

(Doc. 16)

v.
VIRK, et al.,

21-DAY DEADLINE

16
17

Case No. 1:16-cv-01689-LJO-JLT (PC)

On March 20, 2018, the Court screened Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint as required

18

by 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). (Doc. 16.) That order granted Plaintiff leave to file a second amended

19

complaint, and gave her 21 days to file notice of her desire to proceed solely on claims found

20

cognizable in the First Amended Complaint, a second amended complaint correcting identified

21

deficiencies, or a notice of voluntary dismissal. (Id.) Plaintiff requested a 30-day extension of

22

time to respond to the screening order, which was granted on April 18, 2018. (Docs. 17, 18.)

23

More than a month has passed and Plaintiff has failed to file an amended complaint, or to

24

otherwise respond to the Court’s Order.

25

The Local Rules, corresponding with Fed. R. Civ. P. 11, provide, “[f]ailure of counsel, or

26

of a party to comply with . . . any order of the Court may be grounds for the imposition by the

27

Court of any and all sanctions . . . within the inherent power of the Court.” Local Rule 110.

28

“District courts have inherent power to control their dockets,” and in exercising that power, a
1

1

court may impose sanctions, including dismissal of an action. Thompson v. Housing Authority of

2

Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action with prejudice,

3

based on a party’s failure to prosecute an action or failure to obey a court order, or failure to

4

comply with local rules. See, e.g. Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992)

5

(dismissal for failure to comply with an order requiring amendment of complaint); Malone v. U.S.

6

Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply with a court

7

order); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal for failure to

8

prosecute and to comply with local rules).
Accordingly, within 21 days Plaintiff SHALL show cause in writing why this action

9
10

should not be dismissed for her failure both to comply with the Court’s order and to prosecute this

11

action.

12

Plaintiff’s failure to respond to this order in the time provided will result in

13

recommendation that this action be dismissed with prejudice based on her failure to obey

14

the court’s order and to prosecute this action.

15
16
17

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

May 30, 2018

/s/ Jennifer L. Thurston
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2